Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:28:43 -0800 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: Andrew Back <andy@smokebelch.org> Cc: Wesley Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org>, paul beard <paulbeard@mac.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, FreeBSD Laptoppers <freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: 11g Message-ID: <20030203182843.AF2AB5D04@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:09:29 GMT." <20030203175404.O16374-100000@plum.flirble.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:09:29 +0000 (GMT) > From: Andrew Back <andy@smokebelch.org> > Sender: Andy Back <andy@flirble.org> > > 802.11a may be a better option in areas that suffer pollution in the > 2.4GHz ISM band. But don't forget that your unlikely to get the same > range running at 5GHz as you would at 2.4GHz. As a general rule as > frequency increases range decreases. Yes, this is true, assuming all other factors are equal (which they seldom are). But the vast majority of wireless nets could substitute 'a' for 'b' with no problems. They might have to move around antennas a bit, but normally not even that if the 'b' network was conservatively designed. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030203182843.AF2AB5D04>